The Sparring Partner -- Gingrich will make Mitt Fit to face Obama, says Henninger

Wall Street Journal ^ | DECEMBER 15, 2011 | By DANIEL HENNINGER

[garjog]

The best sparring partner is a madman who goes all out.

—Bruce Lee

Every presidential election is a heavyweight fight. It is big, bloody and long.

An incumbent president is always favored to win. No matter what the numbers say, running against a sitting president, you generally are overmatched from day one. See the Kerry and Dole campaigns.

Now comes Mitt Romney. Is he a contender? That eternal 25% ceiling on him says no, not yet.

For months, Mitt has been The Front-Runner, whatever the polls said. It's hard to say that after last Saturday's GOP debate.

About a third of the way in, Newt Gingrich said to Mr. Romney: "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994."

The Front-Runner looked stunned, as if he'd just been hit with a left hook out of nowhere.

[garjog]

Flawed analysis. Newt is much better than Romney or anyone else in debate. Just take a look at his performance compared to the rest in the last few rounds. If Newt is the nominee, he will cream Obama.

[Rashputin]

From the article:

"The top-tier candidates stayed home. They wouldn't do it. He did."

I'd like to know who WSJ thinks the "top-tier" are. I haven't heard too many people upset over someone not running except for Sarah Palin and I'm pretty sure that's not who the WSJ has in mind.

[Bobalu]

If Newt is the nominee, he will cream Obama.

Yes, Newt would destroy Obama in a debate.

But IMO Obama will never debate Newt. The MSM will help Obama come up with an excuse and do their best to sell that excuse to the public.

Obama would however agree to debate Perry were he the nominee. And Perry has such low expectations that as long as he managed to show up and not fall off the stage he would be perceived as at least breaking even.

This is one reason why perry might be a better nominee....but I am leaning hard for Newt these days. He is definitely growing on me. A few months back I considered Newt's candidacy as a joke. My opinion has changed dramatically... it was Newt's ability to take the fight to his opponent that has caused this. I am longing for a true warrior to be the nominee this time!

[SAJ]

Difficult to defeat a sitting president? What rubbish. Look at the past 50 years. When a sitting president ran for re-election:

1964 -- Johnson reelected.
1968 -- Johnson refused to run.
1972 -- Nixon reelected.
1976 -- Ford lost reelection.
1980 -- Carter lost reelection.
1984 -- Reagan reelected.
1992 -- GHW Bush lost reelection.
1996 -- Clinton reelected.
2004 -- GW Bush reelected.

In short, discounting the extraordinary circumstance of 1964 (the American public will never voluntarily accept 3 different presidents in 13 months), the historical record shows roughly 4-to-3 odds in favour of a sitting president being reelected.

And, one might note that NO sitting president since FDR has ever been reelected with the real unemployment rate (as opposed to the imaginary figure trumpeted without end by the Dep't of Labor) above 7.5%, let alone 16.1% as now.

As the well-known Instapundit has observed on numerous occasions: "A syphilitic camel would beat Obama in 2012, assuming that the camel is at least 35 years old."

[Reagan69]

What he is saying is that Newt won the debate !

GO NEWT !

[Flintlock]

First, who the hell thinks that the O is going to “debate” ANYBODY AT ALL??

Betcha he will have a bunch of “scheduling conflicts” that will prohibit all but ONE (if that).

RinoRomney will goalong getalong and accoplish NOTHING.

[RichInOC]

No man can put in what God left out.